geforce 3 ti 200 vs gigabyte 9700 pro

hi!
i need some help
i have a kr7 + xp1800 + a gigabyte 9700 pro.. my girl friend has a kg7 + xp1800 + a sparkle geforce 3 ti 200..
when i run the unreal 2003 demo (on benchmark) i get the following results on my system (hers is in brackets by the side of mine..)

640*480 = flyby - 64.42 (133.03)
botmatch - 34.59 (47.88)

800*600 = flyby - 64.14 (112.01)
botmatch - 34.57 (47.73)

1024 * 768 = flyby - 64.53 (81.32)
botmatch - 34.58 (43.37)

how is this possible? i have the same drivers for the via software installed, i have not overclocked either hardware ie cpu and graphics card and the only real difference, is the motherboards.. so what could be the problem?
can anyone help me? any further information, please shout!
oh, drivers for the graphics cards
9068 for the 9700 pro and 30.82 for the geforce 3 and im running windows 98 se..

if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
31 answers Last reply
More about geforce gigabyte 9700
  1. ???????? are you sure you didn't mix up the computers

    Remember the time You used 20Mb harddrives
  2. although t is a fact that radeon power only shows up at 1600*1400 or so probably the geforce 3 is more apt for running at those low resolutions try putting the radeon system in 1024*768 or higher and benchmark again

    Remember the time You used 20Mb harddrives
  3. i wish i had, but i havent..
    whatever res i run my 9700 pro in, its 65fps for the flyby and 35fps for the botmatch, any ideas? cos i havent got a clue and its depressing me rather a lot..

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  4. Umm...there must be something seriously wrong with your computer...
    The GF 3 Ti, is no where near the 9700 in performance. Those scores could be correct if you had a GF 2 MX or something.

    Check that you dont have 8x Anti-Alaising on or something...
  5. since your scores are soo similar at all resolutions you have a bottleneck on your system...

    did your system have another graphics card in it before the 9700 ??? there could be old drivers hiding...

    Also have you got;
    the memory the same type in both PCs ??
    BIOS settings the same, eg turbo memory settings, full AGP speed etc... ??
    What about your HDDs, they do have an impact on benchmarking u know...
    The same OS on BOTH PCs ??

    oops run out of ideas... BIOS is my bet, good luck (you should be sinking that GF3, not half a lap behind) ;-)

    no-one shouts louder than someone who is being ignored, or in the case of techies, to be heard over the noise of their PC's ;-)
  6. well as far as im aware everything is set to turbo settings, ie its been heavly tweaked!! I can think of nothing that is wrong with my computer, apart from its slow.. Its weird because i think its just in this one game, although colin 2 does 'jerk' every now and again in 16x12x32 with cubic mapping on over a network.. but i guess thats down to the network i think (im not sure tho..)
    every other game seems fine.. i have all the options set to performance, so i think something is slightly wrong there!!

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  7. yeah, i have a amd cpu!
    i had a geforce 2 ultra before in the system and it wasnt slow, well in comparison its crap, but at the time, it was fast!
    i have the same amount of memory in both pcs, i have set all memory settings to cas 2, turbo settings in mine (im a born again tweaker!!) and everything is turned up as far as it will go.. apart from the cpu being overclocked and the same goes for the graphics card
    as for the hard drive, my girl friends machine has a 15gig maxtor ata100 5400rpm and mine has a 7200 ata100 80 ibm deskstar in it.. and im using the same os on both pcs.. windows 98 se..
    i know it should be faster, but its not and i dont know why!! help!!!!!
    i will try resetting the bios and i was thinking of buying xp.. want to see what its like.. if its any better or not..
    anyway, thanks for the help, any more info needed, reply!!!

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  8. Actually XP is slower than 98SE in games, among other things.
    You have tried formatting both PCs hard-drives, right?

    <font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
  9. you old gfx card drivers could well be interfering with your new drivers (uninstalling them doesnt always make them go away, they have a habit of hanging around on your system accosting the card's drivers so to speak)

    As ghostdog said, backup your important data to CDRWs & then do a full FFR on your system (that is Fdisk, Format Reload), if this doesnt solve your problem then it is definately a hardeware issue and no different OS will fix it (no matter what his Billness says XP can do)... good luck to you...

    no-one shouts louder than someone who is being ignored, or in the case of techies, to be heard over the noise of their PC's ;-)
  10. Hey this may be a stupid point but about those benchmarks:

    There are other things involved, not just res. What are the fsaa, aniso, details etc.. settings. I mean those fps's are not bad at fsaa 8x, aniso 8x, full detail and 1024x768.

    Also what are the 3dmarks for respected machines? this will give a better idea...

    :tongue: If <font color=red>Idiots </font color=red>could Fly, the Skies Would Be <b>DARK</b>.
  11. You have the same framerate at 3 different resolutions.

    Two possibilties.

    1. You have Vsync enabled and your video refresh is at 65Mhz <b>[EDIT - meant HZ not Mhz]</b>. Don't think this is the case because I'm pretty sure the UT2003 Benchmark overides the Vsync setting of the video drivers.

    2. Your video card is stuck in PCI mode. Reload Via 4-in-1 drivers. Run the installer once and select the uninstall options. Run it a second time and install the components. This will give you a clean install. Good luck!

    Don't forget to connect the secondary power connector on the 9700.


    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 11/15/02 02:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  12. Guys we know this isnt a hardware issue, and your game seems to have a constant FPS. It sounds like you have a MAX_FPS setting in your UT2k3. Most games have them. You should look in your config files, if you do have one it would look something like setmaxfps=35 or something like that. Just check it out.

    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by gamerLT on 11/15/02 04:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  13. Have you tried running 3dmark2001se? That will help you to evaluate the problem better. Plus like somebody else said, you can match scores of others with similar machines to see how far you are off. It's worth a shot.
  14. Fly-by and Botmatch are two parts of the UT2003 Benchmark, one low action, one high action. There isn't a framerate limiter in the benchmark plus the framerates aren't consistant between the two. One is 65 fps and the other 35 fps.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 11/15/02 08:32 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  15. well, after a full format and install, i have the following results to show from a nice setup..

    640 x 480 = flyby : 147.546814
    botmatch : 51.815197

    800 x 600 = fly by : 148.121017
    botmatch : 51.948109

    1024 x 768 = flyby : 148.083313
    botmatch : 51.934883

    1280 x 960 = flyby : 134.394775
    botmatch : 48.145250

    1600 x 1200 = flyby : 110.444328
    botmatch : 47.773987

    this is with the newer 9069 drivers for the card and with directx 8.1a installed.. no overclock on cpu or graphics card.. i think its doing ok isnt it?
    heres my system link should anyone want a look and a 3dmark 2001se link too..

    <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18250" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=18250</A>

    <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5033796" target="_new">http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5033796</A> - #1 in my field !!! (speed of cpu i think...)

    a big thank to everyone that has helped me with this problem.. !!!!!


    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  16. Nicely done!

    13730! Nice score but that's Win2K with and 6143 driver.

    How well does the 9700 Pro do with Win98 and the new 9069 driver (or Win2K and whatever build number)?

    Basically I'm curious if there are any improvements with Catalyst 2.4.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  17. i have scsi drives that i used to see what the speed was like and as they where older drives, i was rather disappointed in the speed that i actually got..
    but anyway, i did do a test with the new drivers it overclocked etc and it was over 13700.. but just running another test for you now and will post link and scores as well..
    i was considering going to xp, what do you think? i think that theres a lot of problems with the drivers for 98, but as for win 2k and xp it moves along a lot quicker.. which is a shame for the people like me who have win98.. but hey, [-peep-] happens!!
    wont be long with those scores!!

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  18. one question, in the options when you go properties, settings, and then into advanced, it has an option of setting fast writes on and what speed agp you want to run.. when i put fast writes on, the machine resets and then loads up.. but fast writes arent enabled.. and i have no idea why.. anythoughts?
    im planning on upgrading my system, as and when the barton cpu comes out, i will be having a little look at that and seeing whats best at the time..
    im not going to spend out and get a xp2800 as i dont really see the point, as when i do if i want a barton i will have to change motherboards anyway.. so i figured that i was best for me to wait and see what the bartons performance is like.. hopefully near or better than a hyper threading p4 @ 3.06ghz! at half the cost!! but i doubt it. i need better memory really.. i would like to try that corsair pc3500 c2 stuff.. its meant to be the best, but is it worth just getting the pc3200 memory that they do? im pretty sure that an amd setup wont really make to much of a difference when having that in the system would it? any thoughts?

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  19. I'm just comfortable with Win 98SE.

    I thought about Win2K but never XP. I change my hardware too much. I don't want to deal with the XP registration process.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  20. well from what i can make of it, windows 2000 isnt that bad an os.. i think its a bit chosey on what goes in it, sometimes, but other than that.. its fine.
    most of the cards i use get installed without the drivers and so on.. its rather nice! i think the only real reason that i have stuck with 98 is because im too much of a tweaker so i want everything as fast as can be.. but when i get my new scsi hard drive, i might have to go to 2000 for the reason that i dont think 98 will like the install of the drive.. im not sure..
    i must admit i prefer the look of 2000 compared to 98, but im not sure.. what do you think?

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  21. im just even happier now!! with a few more mhz on the graphics card i have managed to get this great score!!!
    im well chuffed!! shame its not 14k! as that was what i am still aiming for with this hardware! here it is anyway!

    <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5068792" target="_new">http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5068792</A>

    this is with overclocking the cpu by 142fsb. by overclocking the graphics card to 378/339 (which i think sucks, but is better than nothing!!) and all the memory settings in the bios as fast as they can go!!
    impressive for a little 1.53ghz amd dont you think????


    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  22. Puts my Radeon 8500 to shame. Ah well, maybe when Doom III comes out.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  23. well, apparently the new geforce cards will put this 9700 pro to shame, but im not so sure about it all..
    if everything is going to start requiring top end systems to get the best from or to even get some decent speed out of it.. we will be needing 4ghz cpus before long!!
    its a shame with my system, because i was hoping for 14000.. but i guess 13885 is good enough!
    wanting a cpu upgrade, was thinking of intel 4 @ 2.66ghz or something, but im going to wait and see what my good friends amd have install for all of us.. im hoping its something special.. i will just have to wait and see..

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  24. Hey again! Nice to see you got it working. Formating is like Jesus, cures everything (well, software-issues anyway).
    That´s one of the best scores I´ve seen for a 1800+ with a 9700Pro, I was expecting to get about 12k myself.

    BTW, nVidia has said they´re not going to call the NV30 "GeForce". Thank god. But they could always change their minds. The arguing over at MadOnion about what it´s going to be called is getting out of hand, it´s peaceful here.

    <font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
  25. Speaking of which...couldn't nVidia come up with a better name than GeforceFX?

    GeforceFX will have a lot of features, enough to support DirectX 9 and then some. I wouldn't say the GeforceFX will put the 9700 Pro to shame. I'm hearing rumors of possibly a 30% advantage over the present 9700 Pro. However R300, though shorter on features, still has a lot of raw speed potential. The revised 9700 PRO with DDR2 memory should demonstrate this.

    Since ATI has a longer product cycle than nVidia we might not see the updated 9700 for a while. Probably less than two months after the release of GeforceFX would be my guess.

    I heard that Epox is coming out with a board that doesn't require bridge mods on a Thoroughbred in order to change multipliers. That would be interesting.

    Right now if you want to get the most out of your 9700 Pro it looks like P4 is the way to go. I would not be surprised if the 9700 Pro is scalable up to P4 4 Ghz and beyond, even the current 9700 Pro.


    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  26. well for me at the moment the xp 1800 and the 9700 pro is the best thing on earth.. well to a point..
    i will laugh at people if the new 'geforce' card turns out to be as fast or a little slower.. it will just be typical..
    i think that the ati card is fantasic, why else would i change from nvidia to ati?..
    i think with the current cpu speeds that the intel is the way to go, but im thinking a little more long term for my pc..
    i would like to see what the barton comes up with as i dearly like the amd cpus.. they are great for price to performance, but i must admit, the newer ones are getting like intel, expensive. this turns me off getting one. and as for intel.. well im a little unsure with them at the moment. i will wait.. its better and it costs nothing!

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  27. well im a born tweaker, if it says it can go this fast, i will still try and get it to go faster!!
    plus the xp chip i have isnt running with the fsb or ddr at 166 so it would hopefully speed up quite a bit with that in mind.. im not sure that the KR7A supports it, but i do know my KR7A does support 133 ata drives.. maybe its a sub.. i have no idea..
    there is a guy on the madonion site that has about 1000 points more than i do (at the most) but i think hes using 166 fsb and an overclocked cpu.. plus my 9700 doesnt overclock that well (only goes up to 378/339).
    im looking forward to upgrading my system.. im getting scsi and another ide hard drive, plus i want to change the motherboard, cpu and memory setup. but until the barton comes out from amd and i see some performance figures for it, im not going to bother.. if the barton isnt that great, i will probably get a 2.66ghz intel or sometihng and see how fast i can get that.. something to do isnt it!!?!?
    im wanting to make as much of an speed increase as i did with changing graphics cards really (i see more of a reason to spend £400 on hardware then.. i know then im getting a good upgrade.) i had a geforce 2 ultra and well its been flatten by this gigabyte 9700 pro card.. but i await the new cpu.. i wonder what it will be.. i really do!
    oh, by the way, i was aiming for 14000.. shame really, it was only about 120 points off too!
    talk again soon! (note to self, if only games machine was as fast as internet connection i would be flying!)

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
  28. Hehehe, I have a TNT2m64, so I´m <b>REALLY</b> looking forward to an upgrade.

    About the Barton, how does it differ from the T-breds? Except the increase in clock-speeds. I´m sort of out of the loop about CPUs.

    <font color=red>I´m starting to feel like a real computer consultant.</font color=red>
  29. I think the only other difference is 512KB of L2 cache vs 256KB for the Thoroughbred.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  30. Supposedly "GeforceFX" (instead of Geforce 5) is official.

    <b>99% is great, unless you are talking about system stability</b>
  31. i think someone told me its got a 166 fsb and a 512kb cache (L2) and its meant to be bigger too, so it will be easier to cool down, hopefully..
    i aim to get one if a lot better than the current set of xp cpus.. its really a plus having one i would imagine because of the cooling aspect.. i imagine it to be rather nice.. if its not, then i will be going down the intel 4 route.. but i will be anyway should the cpus be very expensive.. this is one thing that i really doesnt hope changes amd.. pricing.. i am noticing that the xp cpus are getting rather expensive..
    oh well, i guess my 3dmark score will just have to wait until i get something faster!

    if all else fails... kick it and if it goes wrong, say it wasnt you...
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Gigabyte Geforce Graphics